Dumping to Tape: before or after mastering?

Russell Elevado might argue with this.

I'm having difficulty understanding why you're not getting it.

"The film analogy is totally misused.
People shoot on film for effect every single day here in LA. People combine film with digital tech every single day. After they develop the film they scan it in to a computer and manipulate it digitally."

Actually it's spot on. You're just refusing to think about what i'm saying for some reason.

People shoot on film because they want the result of using the film medium as the base for their creation. That's what a MEDIUM is.

Then they apply digital EFFECTS on top of the essential charcteristics established by the medium. Effects are something that gets applied on top of the base character established by the medium. It's the same thing in audio - you track to tape to establish the essential chacter or feel provided by that medium. Then you can dump to digital for mixing, editing, FX processing, whatever - but the essential character is established by the medium. You don't get the same impression on the observer if you record to digital and then dump to tape. There's somethat happens with the initial recording that somehow defines the essence of what goes after.

Think about that for a while before reacting.

" Jeez. My dad is a cinematographer. My mom is a fine art photographer. I worked for Alan Daviau for years. They all shoot film, develop chemically and dump to digital. "

Of course they do because they know that for the work to have the character that people have come to expect from a real movie it has to use film as a capture medium. People have tried making movies using digital video as the capture medium and have have discoveredf that it really doesn't work very well - the final result pretty much always comes off  with the aesthetics of a video, not a movie. That's what an understanding of the  differences between "similar" media is all about. Film people have understood this for a (relatively) long time now.

"They oversee the process carefully, because they're good artists but they don't get all spun out about the immersive process of "film" photography. They just get about their business of making art. "

Of course they don't. That's these questions were settled in the film world a long time ago. It's understood on a level that really isn't open to discussion. You want to make a real movie you shoot film, then do whatever.

It is my belief that the only reason there's any question about it the audio is due to the pernicious effect of marketing campaigns by digital companies peddling products to the mass market where they're denying the basic diffgerences between the two media so theuy can sell product. Can you imagine someone shooting a commerial movie on digital and then running through a "film simulation" program (yes, they do exist) to add scratches, noise, and artificial grain so that it "looks like film"? They'd be laughed out of the business. Does anyone shoot video, dump to film "for the effect" and then finish up in digital? No, they don't, because it doesn't work.

I think that a major problem with this conversation is symantic. Specifically that the word "effect" has at least two different meanings. A medium has certain chacteristic effects. It does certain things to to the content. That doen't mean the medium IS an "effect". It has "effects" but isn't an effect, it's a medium. The effects are kinda like adejectives describing a noun, if you get what I'm trying to say.  An "effect" where the effect is the "noun" (like echo or compression, whatever) is a specific thing with an additional characteristic that gets applied on top of the basic medium and modifies the essential character of that medium or of the content in some way. I'm afraid I may not be expressing this all that well, it's a somewhat tricky distinction/concept.

I like tape as a medium for a lot of what I do because it imparts a particular set of characteristics that I find desirable for the base of the recording. I like what it does. Am I thinking about tryng to sound like an old recording  from some past era? Generally not. Am I looking for a sonic quality that complements the music? Most certainly.

It's just like what the film guys are doing - they shoot film because it does what they want it to do. And they don't overthink it. Because film people are generally pros and props don't waste time prevaricating about crap like this, they just do what works. And in their field they don't have to put up with legions of gear pimps trying to sell them on "film emulators" that will make video "look just like film".

Actually I generally find working a DAW to be a much bigger PITA than using tape - to the point where I usually have someone else to the mechanics of running the DAW. Some things, like editing, are much easier digitally but I find the general workflow to be arcane, unneccessarily complicated, and, yes, time consuming. As simple a thing as setting EQ in a DAW tends to annoy the crap out of me, whereas on my console I twist a couple knobs while listening in real time and - done. And a lot of operations on a DAW require relying on your eyes to adjust things, whereas I prefer using my ears. In fact at times I've been known to mix with my eyes closed.

All things have strong points and weak points.

John...I worked in Hollywood. My family is in the film business. Video is THE standard capture medium now. MOST movies at ALL budget points are shot on digital video. Have been for years. Film is a novelty now just like tape is in music recording. Your points are incorrect there. In fact, there's a process called film out which is the transfer of video (a much more cost effective and efficient capture MEDIUM) to film. Sometimes it's for creative reasons (film as effect) sometimes for economic reasons, sometimes for film projection of archived footage stored on video but shot on film.

I do agree that our debate is mostly semantic and I concede that tape is a physical storage medium but I would propose that it has come to have another definition...one spawned by and characterized by its use as an effect.

I guess we all make up our own minds about what we believe but young people are making great recordings that use tape as one small part of the process and some of them do it well.

Also I concede that it's an abused and misused term (tape) and a misused and abused concept.

I do enjoy all the knowledge I get from you but I think this ship here has run aground and I call uncle.

I had a singer ask me in his mix notes last month to pultec his voice.
I wish I'd had my EQP-KT to do it with. I taped it instead.

OK.

It's essentially a philosophical question anyway - how you think about and relate to your tools.

John I appreciate your feedback and experience in this thing we call music. You dont have to squint and use a mouse for a plugin EQ, you can of course as you describe but there are wonderful control surfaces and MIDI based options/ solutions out there for relatively inexpensive Up To very expensive. Not the same knobs and faders as a console, however they work fantastic and also one can tweak multiple parameters or channels simultaneously/ individually. Yes, it will be a different workflow than you are used too.

I did not deliberately misquote you or change what you said at all. You may have taken what I wrote differently than meant. I will try again.
" one has to know the layout of the console design howeverer like a daw or plugin channel strip and that means using your eyes whether squinting at tiny numbers around a tiny knob on a console or squinting at a daw / plugin "

I am not tryna argue semantics or argue period. I am not afraid of any console's signal flow or the routing. I also have no issue admitting that a tape based workflow is not something I will be as good At as someone who uses tape daily and has been. The point remains, console or ITB, use what makes you happy and get the sounds you want!

If you are getting the sounds you want on the console but not DAW, it's the console and workflow that makes this happen not your mixing or engineering skills?

Likewise If I am getting the sounds I want ITB then it's the DAW? Not my skills, ears, & techniques & years of experience...

And if I could afford a console, I would be all over something like an Audient with DAW connect or maybe SSL AWS + etc ... not feasible or affordable for me! Have s gol